See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/340494157

Ptolemy’s experiments on refraction in science class

Article  in  Physics Education · May 2020

DOI: 10.1088/1361-6552/ab7c80

CITATIONS READS

0 142

3 authors:

Constantina Stefanidou Vasiliki Psoma

National and Kapodistrian University of Athens National and Kapodistrian University of Athens
33 PUBLICATIONS   17 CITATIONS    1 PUBLICATION   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Constantine Skordoulis
National and Kapodistrian University of Athens
123 PUBLICATIONS   515 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

STEM Education View project

Nature of Science View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Constantina Stefanidou on 08 April 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Physics Education

PAPER

Ptolemy’s experiments on refraction in science class

To cite this article: C Stefanidou et al 2020 Phys. Educ. 55 035027

View the article online for updates and enhancements.

This content was downloaded from IP address 88.197.46.57 on 08/04/2020 at 09:07

 PAPER
Phys. Educ. 55 (2020) 035027 (17pp) iopscience.org/ped

Ptolemy’s experiments on
refraction in science class
C Stefanidou, V Psoma and C Skordoulis
Department of Education, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens,
Greece

E-mail: sconstant@primedu.uoa.gr

Abstract
In this paper, the inclusion of history and philosophy of science in science
teaching is proposed with the goal of depicting pre-service primary teachers’
perception of the role of historical experiments in learning science and the
nature of science. In order to achieve this, a teaching–learning sequence was
designed and conducted in the context of an Introductory Physics Laboratory
Course following the integrated approach to teaching the nature of science.
Ptolemy’s experiments on refraction and the combination of his advanced
and erroneous views contributed to pre-service primary teachers’
conceptualization of the empirical and tentative nature of science and the
relationship between mathematics and science. The majority of the
pre-service primary teachers perceived the history of science as important in
understanding scientific concepts and aspects of the nature of science.

Keywords: nature of science, integrated approach, Ptolemy’s experiments

1. Introduction A review of literature in science education

The discourse that advocates the use of history of
science (HoS) in science teaching has a long his-
tory, starting from Mach and Duhem more than a
century ago [1, 2], and followed by the emblem-
atic work of Heilbron [3], Holton and Brush [4]
and Holton [5, 6] who introduced HoS in the phys-
ics textbooks and encouraged the integration of
HoS into science teaching. The main arguments
are related to (i) a deeper understanding of the
subject matter, meaning that the HoS may reveal
the important context of the considered fragments
of knowledge; (ii) how learning in science edu-
cation relates to the growth of scientific know-
ledge; and (iii) understanding of nature of science
(NOS) in terms of methodological, philosophical
and cultural aspects of science [7].
reveals at least three views of understanding
NOS. The first one is the consensus view, which
attempts to include only those domain-general
NOS aspects that are the least controversial. This
view, also known as ‘general aspects’ conceptual-
ization of NOS, supports emphasis on seven key
aspects or tenets deemed appropriate for school
science that include (1) tentativeness of scientific
knowledge, (2) observations and inferences, (3)
subjectivity and objectivity in science, (4) cre-
ativity and rationality, (5) social and cultural
embeddedness in science, (6) scientific theories
and laws, and (7) scientific methods [8–10]. This
conceptualization has been criticized as being
insufficient and even as misrepresenting science.
Critics suggest that a more complete picture of
science should be communicated to teachers and

1361-6552/20/035027+17$33.00 1 © 2020 IOP Publishing Ltd

C Stefanidou et al
students, rather than a list of general aspects
to NOS. Here comes the second view, fam-
ily resemblance approach (FRA) to NOS [11],
which is based on the ideas of Wittgenstein,
addressing the unity of science without sacri-
ficing its diversity. According to FRA, science
is viewed as a cognitive epistemic system [12]
which encompasses processes of inquiry, aims
and values while it is a social-institutional sys-
tem which encompasses professional activities,
scientific ethos and social certification. Therefore
the FRA can accommodate for both the domain-
general and the domain-specific features of sci-
ence, e.g. many science domains rely on data col-
lection and observation (domain-general), while
experimentation is restricted to some domain, e.g.
astronomy (domain-specific) [13].
According to Kampourakis [14], ‘general
aspects’ conceptualization of NOS provides an
effective starting point for teaching about NOS.
The suggestions made by the critics of the ‘general
aspects’ conceptualization of NOS are, neverthe-
less, useful in order to explore how teaching about
NOS can move beyond general aspects to context-
specific ones. NOS instruction must include ele-
ments from history and philosophy of science that
are relevant to school science and comprehens-
ible by students. Kampourakis [14] argued that the
‘general aspects’ and ‘family resemblance’ con-
ceptualizations of NOS are complementary and
continuous, proposing developmental pathways in
teaching about NOS that might start from the
former and end up to the latter conceptualization.
In a similar context, Niaz [15, 16] sup-
ports the integrated view; this view claims for
an integration of domain-general and domain-
specific aspects of NOS if we want students to
understand ‘science in the making’.
Various examples from HoS are provided to
show how understanding ‘science in the making’
is important in order to facilitate students’ con-
ceiving of alternative interpretations of experi-
mental data, the competition among rival theories
and explanations.
2. History of optics in science teaching
Along with mechanics and astronomy, optics is
one of the oldest areas of scientific exploration; it
May 2020
addresses the reality experienced directly through
sense perception [17]. History of optics is a
fruitful field of ideas regarding light and vis-
ion. A large amount of research papers has been
published regarding the historical approach to
teaching reflection, refraction and the nature of
light and vision [17, 18]. History of optics has
offered the context in which several theories and
pre-theory ideas of light and vision have been
developed. Such ideas include the conceptions of
light in the Hellenic period as well as the theory
of rays developed during the Hellenistic, medi-
eval European and Muslim periods prior to the
scientific revolution of the seventeenth century.
What follows includes the ray theory of the 17th
century, Newton’s color rays, Huygens’ pressure
waves, particle-wave debate which led to the dom-
ination of Newton’s conception of particles in the
18th century, the wave theory of the 19th century
and photon optics of the 20th century.
Galili in his review [17] proposed teaching
optics using HPS-based materials. According to
him, the first who used HoS in science education
addressed the elements of ‘correct’ knowledge
(Type-A), meaning topics that are not in question.
Mihas [18] developed a special optics curriculum
units based on Type-A reconstructions. However,
the history of optics contains more than Type-A
knowledge. It also includes Type-B knowledge,
knowledge which emerged and was later refuted,
being replaced by more advanced accounts. This
knowledge is often seen as irrelevant and undesir-
able in science classes, as ‘incorrect’ ideas may
be a source of confusion for students, who, being
immature, are unable to resolve discrepancies in
the subject matter [17]. On the other hand, Type-
B knowledge is usually relevant, if not identical,
to students’ ideas and misconceptions. This inter-
pretation legitimizes addressing Type-B know-
ledge in teaching using the history of optics, since
it facilitates conceptual change, leading eventu-
ally to scientific understanding.
In addition, HoS and especially Type-B
knowledge has a beneficial impact on teaching
NOS; students’ coping with the historical con-
ceptual difficulties creates an opportunity to learn
about the nature of scientific knowledge. One
of the central features of scientific knowledge is
mathematics. History of optics provides episodes
that highlight the complex and multi-faceted role
2 P hy s . E d u c . 5 5 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 0 3 5 0 2 7
 Ptolemy’s experiments on refraction in science class
of mathematics in knowledge production. Euclid,
Archimedes and Ptolemy were the first to intro-
duce mathematics in the description and explana-
tion of optical phenomena.
Starting with Euclid, he introduced the geo-
metrical concept of rays of light and vision, an
idea that facilitated the description of optical phe-
nomena. At the same time, he supported the erro-
neous idea of active vision, a much older idea,
which coexisted with his successful geometrical
schemes. Lindberg [19] gave us a brief and com-
prehensive overview of the first ideas on active
vision and optics. The theory of active vision dealt
with the idea that objects are seen by rays of light
emanating from the eyes. This idea goes back
to Pythagorean school and is continued through
Empedocles ideas that visual perception involves
the reception of effluences from the object in the
eye. The theory of the two emanations, one from
the eye and one from the visible object which
meet and coalesce somewhere in the intervening
space to produce visual sensation, reached its full
development with Plato. After Felix Platter and
Johannes Kepler, the role of the eye has been
understood and we know that the vision of an
object depends, among others, on the fuction of
the eye, including the role of the retina and the
optic nerve. The idea of active vision, though, still
remains in the literature through some phrases as
‘to throw an eye on something’ and reminds us of
the development of scientific ideas.
The theories of vision developed by atomists,
Pythagoreans, Plato, Stoics and Galen are almost
devoid of mathematics. The first exposition of a
mathematical theory of vision is found in Euc-
lid’s Optics, who based geometrical theorems on
seven postulates. Euclid’s way of thinking with his
innovative and simultaneously fault ideas on vis-
ion could be introduced in science class in order to
highlight the development of scientific knowledge
and the role of mathematics.
The history of the sine law offers another
example of the relationship between mathemat-
ics and science. Ptolemy was the first to tackle the
issue of a law of refraction [18, 20, 21]. His data
did not fit the absolute proportionality between the
angles of incidence and the angles of refraction of
visual rays. Ptolemy tried to adjust his data to a
quadratic dependence [22]. However, the sine law
which truly describes the corresponding angles
May 2020
of incidence and refraction was not obtained by
Ptolemy. Although Alhazen in his Book of Optics
came closer to discovering the law of refraction,
he did not take this step [23]. The Persian scient-
ist Ibn Sahl in 984, in his manuscript On Burn-
ing Mirrors and Lenses, used the refraction law
to derive lens shapes that focus light with no geo-
metric aberrations [24]. The law was rediscovered
by Thomas Harriot in 1602 [25], who however did
not publish his results although he had correspon-
ded with Kepler on this very subject.
According to Smith [21] Ptolemy’s failure
was due to the fact that he only used spatial
(geometrical) considerations of the vision-light
path, while the key to the true account of refrac-
tion, the explanation, was to treat the problem
using temporal (kinetic, physical) considerations,
as Descartes and others did much later. Thus,
obtaining the correct mathematical account in
Hellenistic physics was impeded by an inappro-
priate physical approach: geometry and numbers
were not enough [17]. On a pedagogical level,
Ptolemy’s example provides a fruitful ground for
considering the relationship between mathematics
and science in a period that optics had a long way
to run: the nature and propagation of light and the
‘mechanism’ of vision were some of the problems
waiting to be solved.
3. Integrated view of understanding
NOS—the case of Ptolemy’s experiment
on refraction
Integrated view of understanding NOS which was
introduced and analyzed by Niaz [16], came to
reconcile two traditions in teaching and learn-
ing NOS: the domain-general and domain-specific
view on NOS. Niaz [16] suggested that students
understand ‘science in the making’ through the
integration of the two traditions and argued that
the success of the integration depends upon stu-
dents’ interaction with and conceptualization of
the heuristic principles which the domain-specific
aspects are based on. Such an integration is pro-
posed through a specific schema:
(a) Elaboration of a theoretical framework based
on presuppositions, guiding assumptions,
hard-core beliefs, and previous experience.
(b) Formulation of research questions.
3 P hy s . E d u c . 5 5 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 0 3 5 0 2 7
C Stefanidou et al
(c) Operationalizing heuristic principles.
(d) Designing experiments.
(e) Understanding nature of science.
This schema serves as an outline of how the
specific science content can be organized around
domain-general and domain-specific aspects of
science [16]. The case of Ptolemy’s experiments
on refraction is presented below. In order to teach
the empirical and tentative nature of science and
the relationship between science and mathem-
atics, Ptolemy’s experiments on refraction are
proposed.
4. The purpose of the study
This research aimed to explore pre-service
primary teachers’ perceptions of the role of
historical experiments in developing scientific
explanations and more sophisticated conceptions
of specific aspects of NOS. We propose that the
historical experiments of Ptolemy on refraction be
used in order for pre-service primary teachers to
become familiar with the phenomenon of refrac-
tion and aspects of NOS such as the empirical and
tentative features of science, and the relationship
between science and mathematics.
5. Research methodology
5.1. General background
Fieldwork was carried out in Athens, in the
Department of Primary Education at the National
and Kapodistrian University of Athens dur-
ing the winter semester of 2018–2019. This
research is qualitative descriptive. The research
aimed to examine how pre-service primary teach-
ers perceive the role of history of science in
developing scientific explanations and an under-
standing of aspects of NOS as well. Learners
participated in a historically based laboratory
teaching–learning sequence on optics and espe-
cially Ptolemy’s experiments on refraction, fol-
lowing Niaz’s schema, as described in the next
section. The instruments used were participants’
reflective diaries, their worksheets and an open-
ended questionnaire which allowed for in-depth
examination of their perceptions. All the parti-
cipants responded to the same set of questions
May 2020
included in the questionnaire. Qualitative content
analysis was applied for the analysis of the data.
5.2. Sample of research
The sample consisted of 55 second-year univer-
sity pre-service primary teachers, 50 females and
5 males, who undertook an Introductory Phys-
ics Laboratory Course (IPLC). The IPLC is com-
prised of five rotating self-standing 2 h laboratory
exercises once a week: (1) taking measurements,
(2) mechanics, (3) optics, (4) static electricity, and
(5) heating. Pre-service teachers were divided into
three teams of 18, 18 and 19 persons whose mem-
bers worked in pairs and attended the IPLC. Con-
venience sampling—a non-probability sampling
technique—was used to create sample as per ease
of access and proximity to the researchers [26].
Regarding their scientific training and sci-
ence knowledge, most of the pre-service primary
teachers enrolled in the department had chosen
the Humanities orientation during their final two
years of upper secondary school. According to
the Greek curriculum, during the last 2 years of
secondary school, students may choose their ori-
entation (e.g. Science, Technology, Humanities).
Science classes are mandatory at every grade in
secondary school, except final year for those who
choose the Humanities orientation. As for the
academic background of the pre-service teach-
ers, they attended an Introductory Physics Course
(IPC) during the same semester as the IPLC. How-
ever, when they participated in the Optics laborat-
ory exercise, they had not yet been taught the cor-
responding theory through the IPC. Their answers
were therefore taken to be independent of the IPC
and to derive from either the laboratory exercises
or previously acquired knowledge.
5.3. Teaching–learning sequence
and educational material
A historically based teaching and learning
sequence was developed according to Niaz’s [16]
schema for integrated approach to NOS.
(a) Elaboration of theoretical framework: Ptolemy
followed Euclid’s Optics and Catoptrics
which were mainly based on geometrical
4 P hy s . E d u c . 5 5 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 0 3 5 0 2 7
 Ptolemy’s experiments on refraction in science class
Figure 1. Experiment of catoptric reflection.
schemes; regarding the law of catoptric reflec-
tion, the angle of the reflected ray is equal to
the angle of the incident ray.
Pre-service primary teachers verified the law
by conducting a laboratory experiment and were
introduced to Euclid’s geometrical approach to
optics (figure 1).
(b) Formulation of research questions: However,
Ptolemy went beyond Euclid in that he was
also trying to determine the necessary con-
ditions for accurate perception of an object’s
true location. In other words, what is the
relationship between angles of incidence and
angles of refraction? At this point, one can see
the astronomer’s concerns coming to the fore
[27].
Pre-service primary teachers came to face the
same question in the laboratory and conducted
their research in order to answer it.
(c) Operationalizing heuristic principles: Smith
[21] has pointed out that Ptolemy expec-
ted to find a linear relationship between the
angle of incidence and the angle of refrac-
tion. This apparently reasonable expectation
May 2020
Figure 2. Ptolemy’s experiment on refraction for angle
of incidence 30◦ .
led him to error regarding the law of refrac-
tion. Moreover, Ptolemy maintained the con-
ceptual framework of his predecessor, Euclid,
regarding the visual rays.
(d) Designing experiments: Ptolemy carried out
experiments to investigate the refraction of
light while passing from air to glass, from
glass to water and vice versa. He added a
semicircle of glass to the bottom half of
one disk and sighted through the glass. He
then proceeded to find the angle of refraction
for the glass/air and the glass/water bound-
ary as he did for the water/air boundary.
He also discussed refraction at the air/ether
boundary and its problems for astronomy but
dismissed the possibility of determining the
values [27].
Pre-service primary teachers conducted
experiments on refraction in two phases. First,
they followed Ptolemy’s method, and measured
the angle of refraction for the air/glass boundary
(figure 2). Then, they conducted an experiment on
refraction for the air/glass boundary using a light
source (figure 3). Due to the principle of revers-
ibility of light, the two experimental approaches,
the one based on ray of vision (figure 2) and the
5 P hy s . E d u c . 5 5 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 0 3 5 0 2 7
C Stefanidou et al
Figure 3. Experiment of refraction using a light source.
other based on ray of light (figure 3), are expected
to give the same results. That means that the math-
ematical model of light, what we call geometrical
optics, entails no contradiction.
(e) Understanding nature of science: Pre-service
primary teachers were asked to compare the
data that they had gathered in the first phase
with the corresponding Ptolemy’s table and
found that they were similar. They were also
asked to put the data on a rectangular angle
system and make a hypothesis about the rela-
tionship between the angle of refraction and
angle of incidence. In this way, participants
were explicitly involved in the procedures of
Ptolemy’s experiment that had to do not only
with the empirical and tentative nature of sci-
ence but also with Ptolemy’s heuristic prin-
ciples, such as the ‘proportionality’ of angle of
incidence and angle of refraction. More than
that, participants were urged to observe that
Ptolemy’s experiment was based on his idea
of active vision, allowing them to place dir-
ectly their eye at one point of the disc in order
to ‘see’, when the method with the light source
is in some way more indirect and needs to
shift the place of the observer. They were also
asked to confirm Snell’s law, after they had
taken data using a light source. This was fol-
lowed by a discussion on the role of mathem-
atics to the ‘science in the making’.
The teaching–learning sequence, which
included Niaz’s schema for teaching NOS through
May 2020
history of optics is described in detail in the work-
sheet in appendix A.
5.4. Instruments
Regarding the research data, all participants com-
pleted a worksheet (appendix A) and a reflect-
ive diary (appendix B) during their laboratory
exercise. Moreover, an open-ended questionnaire
was completed by them at home (appendix C).
The instruments included open-ended questions in
order to examine participants’ perceptions of the
role of history of science in learning scientific con-
cepts and processes and certain aspects of NOS to
be depicted.
The worksheets were designed according to
Niaz’s schema and included the phases that have
already been mentioned in the above section. They
included open-ended questions and experimental
activities and were not analyzed in terms of draw-
ing conclusions, as participants’ answers were
usually influenced by the instructor/researcher
(the first author) who had a guiding and facil-
itating role during the teaching-learning process
(appendix A).
Pre-service primary teachers’ reflective diar-
ies were also collected at the end of the laborat-
ory exercise, in which they kept notes on three
questions. The first question asked the participants
to identify the aspects of the teaching–learning
procedure that they found to be the most inter-
esting, while the second one asked for key ele-
ments of the whole procedure that facilitated their
understanding of the phenomenon of refraction.
The third question asked about which part of
the process helped the participants understand
the relation between mathematics and physics
(appendix B). This data enabled the researchers
to ascertain whether participants found historic-
ally based material to be both interesting and
facilitating in understanding the science content
and NOS.
Regarding the questionnaire, it consisted of
six open-ended questions asking for participants’
opinion on the value of teaching optics through
history of science, on the activity they perceived
to be the most helpful in conceiving refraction,
on the role that Ptolemy’s theory of active vis-
ion played in designing his experimental appar-
atus and the benefits of it, on the relationship
6 P hy s . E d u c . 5 5 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 0 3 5 0 2 7
 Ptolemy’s experiments on refraction in science class
between mathematics and physics and particularly
on Ptolemy’s attempt to express a mathematic law,
and on the value of having a mathematical formu-
lated law (appendix C).
The 55 questionnaires coupled with the cor-
responding participants’ answers in their reflect-
ive diary (response rate 100%) were used for data
analysis. In order to avoid bias that might result
from the presence of the instructor-researcher who
had a guiding role in the teaching–learning pro-
cedure, worksheet answers were included in the
analysis only as a secondary data source, in order
to support the information coming from the other
two data sources.
5.5. Data analysis
In the present study, qualitative content analysis
method was used to analyze the data. The texts
for analysis were given to a second coder along
with the analytical rules, such as units, coding
agenda, category definition and level of abstrac-
tion for inductive formation [28]. The points of
disagreement with the second coder were recor-
ded by a third coder. Quantitative steps of ana-
lysis, i.e. percentages, the so-called descriptive
statistics, helped quantify the findings and provide
a clearer picture of participants’ perceptions of the
role of the historical experiments in understanding
science content and NOS aspects [29]. The trust-
worthiness of this research study was checked by
implementing accordant quality criteria: credib-
ility, confirmability, dependability, and transfer-
ability. Credibility was established through trian-
gulation of the data collection instruments; the
questionnaires, the reflective diaries and the work-
sheets which were used supplementary as a sec-
ondary data source. Peer debriefing was also used
to increase the credibility of the data analysis.
The approaches that researchers used to increase
confirmability were documentation and control of
bias, while coding agreement was another strategy
used to enhance dependability. Moreover, the
criterion of descriptive adequacy, one aspect of
transferability, was applied. A thorough descrip-
tion of the context in which the IPLC was under-
taken was provided, so that readers can determ-
ine the extent to which the findings of the case
being examined can be applicable to alternative
settings [30].
May 2020
6. Limitations
Data for this research were collected from a partic-
ular Department of Primary Education (that of the
National and Kapodistrian Univesity of Athens).
The inherent bias in convenience sampling [31],
due to under-representation of particular sub-
groups in the sample, does not allow trust-
worthy inferences to be made about the intended
population.
7. Results
The first findings revealed that most pre-service
primary teachers deemed Ptolemy’s historical
experiment of refraction very helpful in under-
standing both the phenomenon of refraction,
as well as some aspects of NOS, such as the
empirical and tentative character of science and
the relationship between mathematics and sci-
ence (table 1). Participants realized that even
if Ptolemy could not formulate a scientifically
accepted mathematical formula, he developed
an experiment holding great historical value.
They were able to grasp the idea that although
Ptolemy adopted the erroneous idea of active vis-
ion, his account on refraction and the corres-
ponding experiment is of great historical, cul-
tural and scientific value. They had the oppor-
tunity to recognize Euclidean-Ptolemaic heurist-
ics on Optics that influenced Ptolemy’s way of
thinking. Learners came to realize that Ptolemy
was not merely collecting and assessing bare facts
with an open mind. He may have expected that
the angle of incidence and the angle of refraction
would be constantly proportional. Gradually stu-
dents became familiar with the idea that obtain-
ing the correct mathematical law in Hellenistic
years was impeded by an inappropriate physical
approach, in the sense that geometry and num-
bers were not ‘enough’. All of them recognized
that ‘we’ had to wait for some centuries after
Ptolemy’s era for the formulation of a precise law
for refraction, the so-called Snell’s law.
Regarding the first question of the question-
naire ‘Did you find the historical perspective of
the lesson useful in understanding reflection and
refraction? If yes, in what ways?’ the majority of
the participants (84%) answered that the histor-
ical perspective was very helpful in understand-
ing how the scientific ideas changed over time and
7 P hy s . E d u c . 5 5 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 0 3 5 0 2 7
C Stefanidou et al
Table 1. Pre-service teachers answers in the questionnaire.

1st Question: Did you find the historical perspective of the lesson useful in understanding reflection and refrac-
tion? If yes, in what ways?
Answers Frequency Percentage (%)
The historical perspective was very helpful in understanding how the scientific 46 84
ideas were developed.
The historical perspective was helpful (no elaboration) 9 16
2nd Question: Which particular activity facilitated you the most in understanding refraction?
Answers Frequency Percentage (%)
Ptolemy’s historical experiment on refraction (the one with the pins) 50 91
Angle of refraction measurement using a light source 5 9
3rd Question: Do you think that Ptolemy’s active vision played a role in designing the experiment?
Answers Frequency Percentage (%)
Ptolemy’s theory of active vision influenced positively the construction of the 34 62
particular experiment.
Ptolemy’s theory of active vision is not recognized as important. 21 38
4th Question: In your opinion, what are the specific benefits, resulting from this experimental procedure?
Answers Frequency Percentage (%)
The specific experiment offered simplicity and a unique observation of the phe- 44 80
nomenon.
The experimental procedure is helpful (no elaboration) 11 20
5th Question: What is the value of having a mathematical formulation of law?
Answers Frequency Percentage (%)
The mathematical relation is also predictive, in that if we know the refractive 34 62
index of the material, we can calculate the refraction angle for any incidence
angle without performing the experiment.
No answer regarding the value of law. Only description of Snell’s law 12 22
Mathematical law is very important (no elaboration) 9 16
6th Question: Suppose you want to find the angle of refraction that corresponds to an angle of incidence of 37◦ in
an air to glass interface. Which approach would you follow? Ptolemy’s experiment or Snell’s law of refraction?
Answers Frequency Percentage (%)
Snell’s law because it leads to fast and accurate results 44 80
Snell’s law is preferable only for a given refractive index. Otherwise Ptolemy’s 11 20
experiment is better
Total 55 100%

were developed. Particularly, a participant (P26)
answered: ‘Ptolemy followed Euclid’s steps. He
went on to investigate the refraction of light for
the sake of being an astronomer. He was trying
to explain and calculate the actual position of the
stars. It was Snell that managed to formulate the
law that Ptolemy failed to. I am wondering, how
else would we have entered the real world of sci-
ence if we had not previously opened the door
to history?’. Moreover, participants focused on
Ptolemy’s difficulties with refraction and stated
that they faced the same difficulties. This was
‘a relief’ for them making their difficulties seem
more manageable and expected. A minority of
pre-service teachers (16%) answered positively
that the historical perspective was helpful in
understanding reflection and refraction, but they
gave no further explanations.
Regarding the second question ‘Which par-
ticular activity facilitated you the most in under-
standing refraction?’ most pre-service teachers
(91%) found very helpful Ptolemy’s historical
experiment for refraction (figure 2), the one with
the pins, recognizing that this particular exper-
imental set facilitates the observation of refrac-
tion even in room light. The position of the

May 2020 8 P hy s . E d u c . 5 5 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 0 3 5 0 2 7
 Ptolemy’s experiments on refraction in science class
three pins play an important role as no addi-
tional light is needed in order for the refrac-
ted light to be observed. They found extremely
interesting the fact that the pins seemed collin-
ear when viewed through the interface and non-
collinear when viewed from above. In her own
words, a participant (P37) said: ‘Ptolemy was a
genius because he found the way to observe the
change of direction of light using three pins. This
idea is great, especially when it comes from an
astronomer who is looking for the true position of
the stars’. Some pre-service teachers (9%) found
that the most helpful activity for understanding
refraction was to measure the refraction angle
using the light source, due to its accuracy and con-
venience.
Regarding the third question ‘Do you think
that Ptolemy’s idea of active vision played a
role in designing the experiment?’ most of the
pre-service teachers (62%) had the opinion that
Ptolemy’s theory of active vision influenced pos-
itively the construction of the particular experi-
ment, for as much as Ptolemy thought that the
ray is emitted by the humaneye, enters the glass,
and then it is refracted. In a participant’s (P7)
words: ‘Ptolemy’s experiment is based on a aban-
doned theory, but it is appropriate for understand-
ing refraction. If the pins are viewed through the
air/glass boundary they seem to be collinear. If
they are viewed top-down they are not. I under-
stood what is going on’. In other participant’s
words (P18): ‘Ptolemy’s theory of active vision
helped the development of his experimental set
for investigating refraction. It would not be the
one without the other’. Some participants (38%)
did not recognize Ptolemy’s theory of active vis-
ion as important. They just mentioned that this
particular theory has been abandoned explaining
that the light is emitted by the bodies and not by
the eyes.
Regarding the fourth question ‘In your opin-
ion, what are the specific benefits resulting from
this experimental procedure?’ most participants
(80%) answered that the specific experiment
offered simplicity in that someone can see with
his/her own eyes that the pins appear to be
collinear when viewed through a glass to air
interface and non-collinear if they are seen top-
down. Pre-service teachers supported the view
that it is not possible to observe refraction in
May 2020
the same way when conducting the experiment
with a light source. Particularly, the participant
P13 said: ‘Through this experimental procedure
we deeply understand the refraction phenomenon.
The experimental procedure is very simple and
offers opportunities for deeper understanding. The
fact that we are trying to explain how the pins
seem to be collinear if seen through the interface
and they are not if they are seen top-down, help
us understand the relation between angle of incid-
ence and angle of refraction’. Most of the pre-
service primary teachers expressed an extra bene-
fit of this experimental set that had to do with
the fact that only simple everyday materials and
not technologically advanced equipment supplies
were used. Some participants (20%) simply reit-
erated that Ptolemy’s experiment helped them, but
without explaining the reasons.
Regarding the fifth question ‘What is the
value of having a mathematical formulation of
law?’ most pre-service teachers (62%) responded
that the mathematical relation is predictive in that
for a given refractive index, the refraction angle
for any incidence angle can be calculated. Some
participants suggested that a powerful advantage
of the mathematical law is the calculation of the
speed of light in glass or any other material, with
a given refractive index. Some participants (16%)
admitted that the law is valuable without explicitly
explaining why. Finally, some participants (22%)
just described Snell’s law without arguing for its
importance.
Regarding the sixth question ‘Suppose you
want to find the angle of refraction that corres-
ponds to an angle of incidence of 37◦ in an air
to glass interface. Which approach would you
follow? Ptolemy’s experiment or Snell’s law of
refraction?’ Most participants (80%) answered
that they would choose Snell’s law that leads them
to fast and accurate results, since with Ptolemy’s
tables they could only approximately find that
angle. Few participants (20%) answered that they
would use Snell’s law only in case they knew
the refraction index, otherwise they would do the
Ptolemy’s experiment.
Regarding the reflective diaries (table 2), a lot
of participants (44%) thought that the most inter-
esting phase of the teaching—learning sequence
was the implementation of Ptolemy’s experiment
on refraction. The reason for that was not limited
9 P hy s . E d u c . 5 5 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 0 3 5 0 2 7
C Stefanidou et al
Table 2. Pre-service teachers’ answers in the reflective diaries.

1st Question: What did you find most interesting about the teaching—learning process?
Answers Frequency Percentage (%)
The implementation of Ptolemy’s experiment for refraction. 24 44
The fact that Ptolemy was studying and trying to quantify the phenomenon of 18 33
refraction based on the abandoned theory of active vision.
The fact that they made the graphs of Ptolemy and their own measurements on 11 20
the same coordinate system.
Measuring the refraction angle with the angular disc and the light source. 2 3
2nd Question: What facilitated you the most in understanding the phenomenon of refraction?
Answers Frequency Percentage (%)
Using Ptolemy’s experimental set (without any light source) followed by the 44 80
corresponding experiment using light source confirming Snell’s law.
Ptolemy’s experiment (no elaboration) 11 20
3rd Question: What facilitated you the most in understanding the relation between mathematics and physics?
Answers Frequency Percentage (%)
The activity of developing a mathematical relation between the angles of incid- 45 82
ence and the angles of refraction, like Ptolemy did.
There is a strong relationship between physics and mathematics (tautology) 10 18
Total 55 100%

to the fact that the experiment was very helpful
in understanding refraction. More than that, they
liked Ptolemy’s idea ‘per se’, and they found very
interesting the fact that Ptolemy’s research was
triggered by the fact that he was an astronomer
aiming to find the real position of stars. Parti-
cipants appreciated the fact that Ptolemy found
the way to do the research ‘here on earth’. Finally,
some of them argued that it requires only simple
materials and supplies, which make it much more
interesting.
In addition, a significant number of pre-
service teachers (33%) was interested in the fact
that Ptolemy was studying and trying to quantify
the phenomenon of refraction based on the erro-
neous theory of active vision. That is, the scient-
ist’s ingenuity also contained elements that are no
longer scientifically acceptable today. Specific-
ally, a participant said (P23): ‘Ptolemy argued that
light is emitted from the eyes, which is wrong. But
it is striking to see how through this error he made
such a profound analysis of the phenomenon of
refraction’.
For some participants (20%), the most inter-
esting phase of teaching was making the graphs
of angles of incidence and refraction on the same
coordinate system, based both on Ptolemy’s and
their data. They found it extremely interesting to
compare the accuracy of their measurements with
that of Ptolemy, as well as to try to figure out what
the form of the graph was like. Some of the pre-
service teachers were really impressed by the fact
that although at first, they considered the angle of
incidence and the angle of refraction as propor-
tional, they had an impression that something was
going wrong with this thought. When they real-
ized that the proportionality was between the sine
values of the angles and not the measures of the
angles, their concern was confirmed.
Few participants (3%) found measuring the
refraction angle with the angular disc and the
light source (figure 3) to be the most interesting
phase of the teaching sequence. These participants
argued that it was interesting because refraction is
clearly revealed using the light source.
Regarding the second question of the reflect-
ive diaries ‘What facilitated you the most in
understanding the phenomenon of refraction?’
most pre-service teachers (80%) argued that
the experiment that helped them the most in
understanding the phenomenon of refraction was
Ptolemy’s experimental set (figure 2), followed by
the corresponding experiment using light source
(figure 3) confirming Snell’s law. Participants
highlighted that although Ptolemy’s experiment
was based on the erroneous theory of active

May 2020 10 P hy s . E d u c . 5 5 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 0 3 5 0 2 7
 Ptolemy’s experiments on refraction in science class
vision, it helped them empirically understanding
the phenomenon of refraction.
Some pre-service teachers (20%) argued that
the experiment that helped them the most in
understanding refraction was Ptolemy’s experi-
ment without however explaining their view.
The last question of the reflective diary was
the following: ‘What facilitated you the most
in understanding the relation between mathem-
atics and physics?’. Most pre-service teachers
(82%) supported that the activity that helped
them the most was the one where they, like
Ptolemy, attempted to develop a mathematical
relation between the angles of incidence and
the angles of refraction and eventually failed.
The participants claimed that this activity was
thought-provoking and prepared the ground for
introducing Snell’s law. In other words, through
this teaching sequence, they understood both
the phenomenon of refraction and the relation
between physics and mathematics.
Some participants (18%) answered, using
a tautology, that there is a strong relationship
between physics and mathematics without further
elaborating on that.
Findings from the analysis of the question-
naires are in line with the findings from the reflect-
ive diaries. Participants made explicit references
to the teaching sequence and to particular activit-
ies during the laboratory lesson. Such a fact gives
evidence for increased credibility through triangu-
lation of data collection and results.
8. Discussion
Data analysis showed that pre-service teachers
perceive historical experiments as being help-
ful in understanding science content and NOS
as well. These findings are more meaningful if
we consider the fact that participants were fully
engaged in a historically based teaching and learn-
ing sequence. Their answers were given in the
historical context of Ptolemy’s work on refrac-
tion. They had the opportunity to investigate
Ptolemy’s measurements for angles of refraction
and develop their own hypothesis about the rela-
tionship between angles of refraction and incid-
ence. They also had the opportunity to think about
Ptolemy’s theory of active vision and the role it
played in the development of his experimental set
May 2020
for refraction. In other words, in this study pre-
service teachers had the opportunity to explain in
detail the reasons for supporting or not history of
science in science teaching.
This study is in line with previous study
[32] which indicates that teachers—including stu-
dent teachers, elementary teachers, middle school
teachers, and high school teachers, believe that
teaching history of science is an important part
of their science instructional program. The addi-
tional value of the present study is that the par-
ticipants were students themselves and particip-
ated in a historically based laboratory instruction.
Their experience helped them express their per-
ceptions of the role of history of science in learn-
ing science content and NOS as well.
Psillos’ paper [32] ‘Is the history of science
the wasteland of false theories?’ can shed light
on the role of Ptolemy’s abandoned theory of act-
ive vision. The results revealed that pre-service
teachers found the theory of active vision both
interesting and helpful in understanding refrac-
tion. More than that, most of them found theory of
active vision interesting in developing the idea of
how scientific ideas develop. On the other hand,
theory of active vision can be currently found in
history of science books and not in textbooks,
even though it was the dominant theory for quite
some time and enjoyed explanatory and predictive
success. Participants received active vision the-
ory with appreciation and cultivated what Psillos
[32] calls ‘scientific conscience’: critical appraisal
of one’s own theory; sensitivity to the strengths
and limitations of scientific inquiry; openness to
criticism and correction; responsiveness to epi-
stemic values and theoretical virtues; sensitivity
to the historical complexity and the philosophical
implications of the scientific enterprise.
However, this belief is not necessarily con-
gruent with instructional practices related to the
teaching of the history of science. Most teachers
in Wang’s study believe that history of science
is important, however, they often have limited
instructional materials [33], and inappropriate
training. By integrating history of science with
daily science instruction, teachers will facilit-
ate their students to develop a culturally and
socially relevant view of science, and ultimately
produce more scientifically and culturally literate
citizens.
11 P hy s . E d u c . 5 5 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 0 3 5 0 2 7
C Stefanidou et al
9. Conclusions
This study aimed at investigating the pre-service
primary teachers’ perceptions related to the role
of historical experiments in developing scientific
explanations and NOS as well. For that pur-
pose, an integrated approach to teaching NOS
was implemented based on History of Optics and
particularly Ptolemy’s experiments on refraction.
The first findings revealed that pre-service teach-
ers perceived history of science as being import-
ant in developing scientific explanations and in
providing a better understanding of the empir-
ical and tentative aspects of the NOS as well as
the relationship between mathematics and phys- Figure A1. Schematic optical representation.
ics. Participants characteristically said that his-
torical experiments, such as Ptolemy’s, can shed
light on human’s way of thinking and on the ways
in which scientific concepts can be developed
through accepted and abandoned theories alike.
Moreover, participants, after their experimenta-
tion with Ptolemy’s data, considered History of
Science as very important in revealing the rela-
tionship between physics and mathematics.
The findings of this study reveal a practical
application worthy of future study and practice,
since it is about the implementation of an integ-
rated approach to NOS [16] in pre-service teach-
ers education and pre-service teachers’ percep- Figure A2. Experimental set of reflection.
tions of the role of the historical experiments
in their learning NOS. What pre-service teach-
ers found to be interesting and helpful was not Appendix A: Worksheet (completed in
a result of their personal background knowledge class)
but a result of their experience in the lab. Pre- A. Reflection
service teachers are future primary teachers who
may or may not use history of science in their own Phase of hypotheses/ elaboration of a
classes depending also on their own experience. theoretical framework based on
The present study provides evidence that suggests presuppositions
that pre-service teachers who are offered histor- 1. Can you make a hypothesis regarding the
ical based laboratory experiences perceive history beam path in figure A1? Draw and describe the
of science as helpful and motivating in teaching path.
and learning science. …………………………………………………..
Consequently, what this study suggests for …………………………………………………..
future consideration is increasing the historically …………………………………………………..
based physics laboratory exercises using Niaz’s 2. Identify the incidence ray, the normal and
schema for an integrated approach to teaching the reflected ray and the corresponding angles.
NOS [16], in order for the pre-service teachers to 3. Place the mirror surface at the location
ascertain that history of science is not only help- shown in figure A2. Put the light source in such
ful but necessary in teaching science content and a position that rays fall on the mirror. Observe the
NOS as well. ray of incidence and the ray of reflection.

May 2020 12 P hy s . E d u c . 5 5 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 0 3 5 0 2 7
 Ptolemy’s experiments on refraction in science class
Table A1. Reflection measurements.

Angle of incidence Angle of reflection

o
30
45o
50◦
60◦

4. Complete the table.

5. Compare the angles of incidence and the
corresponding angles of refraction. What do you
observe?
…………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………..
The first explicit formulation of the law of
reflection, stating the equality of the angles of
incidence and reflection of sight or visual rays is Figure A3. Apparent depth.
to be found in Euclid’s Optics.
6. Do your measurements verify the law of
reflection? If not, why do you think that happens?
…………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………..

B. Refraction
Formulation of research questions
Do you think that the boy in figure A3 sees the
light source in the right position? Can you think of
a possible explanation for why this is happening?
Can you describe similar phenomena?
The first who not only observed refraction
phenomena but also conducted related exper-
iments was the astronomer Claudius Ptolemy Figure A4. Ptolemy’s experimental set.
(108–170 AD). Ptolemy dealt with refraction and
claimed in his Astronomy that the position of a
Let us follow Ptolemy’s steps…
star is apparent due to the refraction of light by
the atmosphere. He experimented with the relation
between the angles of incidence and the angles Designing experiments
of refraction by examining the refraction of rays 7. On your laboratory bench, you can find
‘coming out of the eye’! Ptolemy’s experiments a semicircular glass block, fastened in the angular
are among the first experiments in the history of disc, in order to measure angles easily. Have two
the natural sciences! pins placed at two points (A and B), so that an
Ptolemy’s experimental set is similar to the angle of 10◦ be formed. Place another pin at C
one in figure A4. Ptolemy ‘seeing’ through the point, so that points A, B and C be collinear, if
air–water separating surface, placed a sign in the they are seen through the air/glass boundary.
water so that the three points would look collinear 8. Measure the angle that BC forms to the
as he looked through the air–glass surface. perpendicular line: ………………………

May 2020 13 P hy s . E d u c . 5 5 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 0 3 5 0 2 7
C Stefanidou et al
Table A2. Measurements according to Ptolemy’s
experiment.
Angle between AB and Angle between BC and
the perpendicular the perpendicular

0◦
10◦
20◦
30◦
40◦
50◦
60◦
70◦
80◦
Figure A5. Experimental set for refraction.
Table A3. Ptolemy’s measurements on refraction.

Angle between AB and Ptolemy’s angle between Table A4. Refraction measurements using the laser
the perpendicular BC and the perpendicular source.
Angle of incidence Angle of refraction
0◦ 0◦
10◦ 7◦ θ1 = 30◦
20◦ 13◦ 30’ θ2 = 40◦
30◦ 19◦ 30’ θ3 = 50◦
40◦ 25◦ θ4 = 60◦
50◦ 30◦
60◦ 34◦ 30’
70◦ 38◦ 30’
80◦ 42◦ …………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………..
9. Repeat the procedure for the measure-
ment of the following angles in the table below
(table A2). Understanding NOS
In table A3, you can see what Ptolemy’s 13. Ptolemy failed to mathematically calculate the
measurements for the corresponding angles in a angle of refraction. His measurements did not end
glass air refraction are. to a mathematical equation (law). Such a math-
ematical description was Snellious and Descartes’
Operationalizing heuristic principles achievement 1500 years later and is known as
10. Compare your results with Ptolemy’s Snell’s law of refraction. Place the semicircular
measurements and write down your observations. glass block in the position specially designed for
………………………………………………….. it. Put the light source in such a position so that
………………………………………………….. the light fall exactly in the center of the semicir-
………………………………………………….. cular glass with an angle of incidence of 30◦ , and
11. On the same axis system, make the two the incident and reflected ray appear on the disc,
graphs, using Ptolemy’s data and your own data. as shown in figure A5.
………………………………………………….. Several tests may be required to achieve the
………………………………………………….. desired result. Before proceeding, ask the super-
………………………………………………….. visor to check the experimental set. Then meas-
12. Compare the two graphs and write down ure the angle of refraction θ using the angu-
your observations. What is the type of the graph lar disc. Repeat the procedure and complete
(linear, parabola, trigonometric, etc)? table A4.

May 2020 14 P hy s . E d u c . 5 5 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 0 3 5 0 2 7
 Ptolemy’s experiments on refraction in science class
Table A5. Calculating the fraction.
Fraction
sin(θin )1 /sin(θref )1
sin(θin )2 /sin(θref )2
sin(θin )3 /sin(θref )3
sin(θin )4 /sin(θref )4
14. Using the provided trigonometric table,
find the sine of angle of incidence and the angle
of refraction. For every pair of angles, calculate
the fraction, and complete table A5. What do you
observe?
15. Calculate the average of the above values
sin(θin)/sin(θref) = ……
16. The ratio you calculated above is char-
acteristic of any material and is called refractive
index. The ratio you calculated in the previous
step is equal to the refractive index n of the glass.
The literature reports that the refractive index of
ordinary glasses ranges between 1.52 and 1.62,
while in some special glasses it can take values
above 1.70. According to the value of the refract-
ive index you calculated for that piece of glass,
what kind of glass do you think it is? An ordinary
or a special one?
…………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………..
17. Can you calculate the angle of refraction,
if the angle of incidence is 50◦ ? Could you do that
using Ptolemy’s measurements?
…………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………..
18. Given that light propagates in vacuum
with 3 × 108 m s−1 , calculate the velocity of light
in the glass, using the refractive index you found
in activity 15.
…………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………..
19. We have another material with n′ = 1,2.
Does the light propagate slower, faster or the
same? What is the significance of refractive
index?
…………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………..
May 2020
Appendix B: Reflective diary (completed
in class)
1. What did you find most interesting during the
teaching–learning process?
…………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………..
2. What did you find most helpful in under-
standing the phenomenon of refraction?
…………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………..
3. What did you find more helpful in under-
standing the relation between mathematics and
physics?
Appendix C: Questionnaire (completed
at home)
1. During the laboratory meeting, you worked on
reflection and refraction; Euclid’s law of reflec-
tion, Ptolemy’s experiments on refraction and
Snell’s law of refraction. Did you find the histor-
ical perspective of the lesson useful in understand-
ing reflection and refraction?
…………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………..
2. What is the activity you find most helpful
in understanding refraction?
…………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………..
3. Although Ptolemy’s theory of active vis-
ion is abandoned, during the laboratory meeting
you were asked to conduct experiments on refrac-
tion following Ptolemy’s method using the pins.
Do you think that Ptolemy’s active vision played
a role in designing the experiment?
…………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………..
4. In your opinion, what are the specific bene-
fits, resulting from this experimental procedure?
…………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………..
5. Ptolemy failed in formulating a law for
refraction. Some centuries later, Snell formulated
a mathematical relation (a law) relating the sinus
15 P hy s . E d u c . 5 5 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 0 3 5 0 2 7
C Stefanidou et al
of angle of incidence to sinus of angle of refrac-
tion. What is the value of having a mathematical
formulation of a law?
…………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………..
6. Suppose you want to find the angle of
refraction that corresponds to an angle of incid-
ence of 37◦ in a glass/air boundary. Which
approach would you follow? Ptolemy’s experi-
ment or Snell’s law of refraction? Please, justify
your answer.
…………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………..
ORCID iD
C Stefanidou  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-
2509-7764
Received 5 January 2020, in final form 11 February 2020
Accepted for publication 4 March 2020
https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6552/ab7c80
References
[1] Mach E 1893/1960 The Science of Mechanics; A
Critical and Historical Account of Its
Development (Chicago, IL: Open Court
Publishing Company)
[2] Duhem P 1906/1954 The Aim and Structure of
Physical Theory (Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press)
[3] Heilbron L J 1987 Applied history of science
ISIS 78 552–63
[4] Holton G and Brush S G 1973 Introduction to
Concepts and Theories in Physical Science
(Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley
Publishing Co.)
[5] Holton G 2003 What historians of science and
science educators can do for one another Sci.
Educ. 12 603–16
[6] Holton G 2003 The project physics course, then
and now Sci. Educ. 12 779–86
[7] Mathews M 2015 Science Teaching: the
Contribution of History and Philosophy of
Science, 20th Anniversary Revised and
Expanded Edition 2nd edn (New York:
Routledge)
[8] Lederman N, Abd-El-Khalick F, Bell R and
Schwartz R 2002 Views of nature of science
questionnaire: toward valid and meaningful
assessment of learners’ conceptions of nature
of science J. Res. Sci. Teach. 39 497–521
[9] Abd-El-Khalick F 2012 Examining the sources
for our understandings about science:
May 2020
enduring conflations and critical issues in
research on nature of science in science
education Int. J. Sci. Educ. 34 353–74
[10] Osborne J, Collins S, Ratcliffe M, Millar R and
Duschl R 2003 What ‘ideas-about-science’
should be taught in school science? A delphi
study of the expert community J. Res. Sci.
Teach. 40 692–720
[11] Erduran S and Dagher Z 2014 Reconceptualizing
the Nature of Science for Science Education:
scientific Knowledge, Practices and Other
Family Categories (Dordrecht: Springer)
[12] Irzik G and Nola R 2011 A family resemblance
approach to the nature of science for science
education Sci. Educ. 20 591–607
[13] Kaya E and Erduran S 2016 From FRA to RFN,
or how the family resemblance approach can
be transformed for science curriculum
analysis on nature of science Sci. Educ.
25 1115–33
[14] Kampourakis K 2016 The ‘general aspects’
conceptualization as a pragmatic and
effective means to introducing students to
nature of science J. Res. Sci. Teach.
53 667–82
[15] Niaz M 2001 Understanding nature of science as
progressive transitions in heuristic principles
Sci. Educ. 8 684–90
[16] Niaz M 2016 Nature of science in science
education: an integrated view Chemistry
Education and Contributions from History
and Philosophy of Science (Cham: Springer)
[17] Galili I 2014 Teaching optics:
ahistorico-philosophical perspective
International Handbook of Research in
History, Philosophy and Science Teaching,
ed M R Matthews (Dordrecht: Springer) pp
97–128
[18] Mihas P 2008 Developing ideas of refraction,
lenses and rainbow through the use of
historical resources Sci. Educ. 17 751–77
[19] Lindberg D 1976 Theories of Vision, From
Al-Kindi to Kepler (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press)
[20] Ptolemy C 1940/1966 Refraction A Source Book
in Greek Science ed M R Cohen and
I E Drankin (New York: McGraw-Hill)
pp 271–81
[21] Smith A M 1982 Ptolemy’s search for a law of
refractions: a case-study in the classical
methodology of ‘saving the appearance’ and
its limitations Arch. Hist. Exact Sci. 26
221–40
[22] Russo L 2004 The Forgotten Revolution: How
Science Was Born in 300 BC and Why It Had
to Be Reborn (New York: Springer)
[23] Sabra A I 1981 Theories of Light from Descartes
to Newton (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press)
16 P hy s . E d u c . 5 5 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 0 3 5 0 2 7
 Ptolemy’s experiments on refraction in science class
[24] Rashed R 1990 A pioneer in anaclastics: ibn Sahl
on burning mirrors and lenses ISIS
81 464–91
[25] Kwan A, Dudley J and Lantz E 2002 Who really
discovered Snell’s law? Phys. World
15 64
[26] Dörnyei Z 2007 Research Methods in Applied
Linguistics (New York: Oxford University
Press)
[27] Riley M 1995 Ptolemy’s use of his predecessors’
data Trans. Am. Philol. Assoc.
125 221–30
[28] Mayring P 2014 Qualitative Content Analysis.
Theoretical Foundation, Basic Procedures
and Software Solution (Klagenfurt:
Beltz)
[29] Gay L, Mills G and Airasian P 2012 Education
Research, Competencies for Analysis and
Analysis (Hoboken, NJ: Pearson)
[30] Lincoln Y S and Guba E G 1985 Naturalistic
Inquiry (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage)
[31] Hedt L B and Pagano M 2011 Health indicators:
eliminating bias from convenience sampling
estimators Stat. Med. 30 560–8
[32] Psillos S 2010 Is the history of science the
wasteland of false theories? Adapting
Historical Knowledge Production to the
Classroom ed P Kokkotas, K Malamitsa and
A Rizaki (Netherlands: Sense Publishers)
pp 17–36
[33] Wang H A and Cox-Petersen A M 2002 A
comparison of elementary, secondary and
student teachers’ perceptions and practices
related to history of science instruction Sci.
Educ. 11 69–81
Constantina Stefanidou is a
physicist who has a PhD in Science
Education from University of Athens.
After a long period of teaching
science in secondary education, she
now has a position in the Department
of Education at Athens University
in the field of pre-service teachers’
science education. Her research
and publications are on didactics
of science, focusing on historical
May 2020
View publication stats
and philosophical perspectives as well as conceptual
difficulties and their relation to model-based teaching and
learning and informal science education. She participates
in international conferences and science communication
actions. She is a member of the European Science Education
Research Association (ESERA) and the International History
Philosophy and Science Teaching (IHPST) Group.
Vasiliki Psoma graduated from
the Faculty of Primary Education
of Ioannina University, Greece in
2011. In 2016, she earned her Masters
degree in Science in Education from
the NKUA, Greece, where she is
currently doing her PhD on Historical
Experiments in STEAM education.
For the past 9 years, she has been
employed as a primary educator in an
International Baccalaureate school,
which was the first to establish a STEM Academy in Greece.
Constantine Skordoulis is Professor
of Epistemology and Didactical
Methodology of Physics in the
Department of Primary Education,
National and Kapodistrian University
of Athens. He is the Director of the
Laboratory of Science Education and
Educational Technology and Head
of the Postgraduate Studies Program
‘Didactics and Public Understanding
of Science and Digital Technologies’.
He is academic coordinator of the Postgraduate Program
‘Secondary Science Teachers Education’ of the Hellenic
Open University. He has studied Natural Sciences at the
University of Kent at Canterbury, UK, and worked as
a visiting researcher at the Universities of Oxford and
Groningen. He is Co-Editor of ‘Almagest / Journal for the
History of Scientific Ideas’ (Brepols, Brussels) and a member
of the Editorial Boards of international journals (Journal of
Critical Education Policy Studies, Advances in Historical
Studies, Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Science, etc).
He is an Effective Member of the International Academy
of History of Science and has served as the Secretary of the
Interdivisional Teaching Commission of the International
Union of History and Philosophy of Science (2007–2017).
His research interests include History of Science and Science
Education from a critical perspective.
17 P hy s . E d u c . 5 5 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 0 3 5 0 2 7